Ofcom ruled last year that Gaunt had overstepped the mark in November 2008 when he called an interviewee – Michael Stark, the head of children's services at Redbridge council – a "Nazi", "health Nazi" and "ignorant pig" over plans to ban smokers from fostering children.

Gaunt, who was himself taken into care as a child, made the remarks after Stark suggested his upbringing had "obviously had an effect" on him. Gaunt later apologised for his language, but TalkSport fired him 10 days later after the interview was broadcast.

After a high court hearing lasting two-and-a-half hours, Mr Justice Stadlen decided that the case had sufficient merit to be heard fully at a two-day judicial review.

"Some people say I'm a hypocrite," he said after the hearing. "But it's only when your freedom is being curtailed that you realise how important it is. It goes back to Magna Carta – as an Englishman, I have a right to say what I feel."

He criticised Ofcom as an unnecessary regulator that curbed freedom of expression. "We don't need Ofcom, we have got an off switch," he said. "We have an draconian, unelected, expensive to run quango of do-gooders who can stand there and say 'this is good taste and decency'. We don't need them... We have the law of the land. If I say something, you can sue me."

Gaunt also found an unlikely backer in Shami Chakrabarti, the director of Liberty, whom he once branded "Britain's most dangerous woman".

Chakrabarti attended today's hearing, and said afterwards that the case was a very significant test of free speech in Britain.

"This is not about one journalist and one politician," she said. "There is a big principle here. People do not have the right not to be offended. It's a very dangerous right to assert."

She said it was "a chilling moment" when Ofcom's barrister argued that Gaunt's interview did not represent "political speech". "Ofcom needs to wear its power with a little more humility," she added.

An Ofcom spokesman said after the hearing:"Ofcom's role is to decide whether a particular broadcast is in breach of generally accepted standards in the Broadcasting Code.

"In this particular broadcast, Ofcom decided that Jon Gaunt went too far with offensive language and a bullying style.

"The judge made it clear he was not making a decision on the case but simply referring it to a full hearing because it met the low threshold of arguability."

In court today, Gaunt's barrister, Gavin Millar QC, said the presenter's choice of language did not merit censure by Ofcom.

"In the 21st century, in a heated debate with a politician, to call them an ignorant pig is not the stuff of an intervention by a regulator," he told the court.

"It's not offensive material of the sort to justify invention by a regulator – it's a very sad day for free speech if that justifies intervention by a regulator."

David Anderson QC, acting for Ofcom, said it was inappropriate to invoke the human rights act in the case of Gaunt's interview.

"It degenerated to a point where it was not an interview at all," he said. "There was a succession of insults, people lost their tempers.

"To suggest a dialogue of that kind is entitled to a high degree of protection is just wrong."

He said Gaunt's show had attracted 203 complaints over the course of 138 programmes, with 53 prompted by the interview with Stark.

The judge concluded that Gaunt's case was "arguable" and granted permission for it to be taken further.

• To contact the MediaGuardian news desk email editor@mediaguardian.co.uk or phone 020 3353 3857. For all other inquiries please call the main Guardian switchboard on 020 3353 2000.

• If you are writing a comment for publication, please mark clearly "for publication".